When a persons back is against the wall and the stakes are the highest, how should they handle the pressure? When the lines between right and wrong become so blurred, how is one to know what is the ethical choice in the matter? Imagine being accused of first degree murder, a crime in which you did not commit. However, the evidence against you is stacked so high, it seems you do not have a chance. Your lawyer says he could have you acquitted, but in order to do so he must engage in some unethical courtroom tricks. So with your life on the line, what is the right thing to do? Do you keep the lawyer or should you stand by the truth?I believe the nice thing for everyone to say is that they would stand by the truth. That would be if we, as a society, could really believe that the truth always wins out. However, realistically we know that bad things happen to good people and not always does good triumph over evil. I know that for myself I honestly think that being trapped like that, I would stick with the lawyer. For me being in that situation, I would be too scared to take the chance that the lawyer with the good, honest tactics could get me off. I would be too scared to not go with what seems to be a good thing. My attitude would probably be that since I am being falsely accused in the first place, then it would be fine to use whatever means necessary to have me acquitted.In this situation, I believe that Gorgias would have the same opinion as I would. Gorgias would have rather stayed with the same lawyer, because he would have more belief in the power of oratory. He believed that through oratory anyone or anything could be convinced even though that person might not be a professional on the subject he was expounding on. Through oratory, Gorgias believed that a person gains his personal freedom. In a courtroom, oratory could be used to convince the jury system of anything. Oratory, Gorgias believed, had the total power ...
